The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-10-01
"THA1tFICTIoN."

II lFlCI ii U N
1t appears from the reply of DR..
Sweetser, that in our little article on
"Feeling after a Truth" we did not
help him particle. OF course, we
fattered ourselves that we were illu-
minating his theology with flood of
resolving light. ALAS, for human van
ity; it seems that we only treated him
to "a familiar aei time-worn felton,"
with which he hes been acquainted for
something less than century. That
fiction is that ''all the change possible
to God is in the form of his activity"
But is this fiction ? If God changes
something more than the form of his
activity, what is that something? Is
it the nature of his activity =? Certainly
not, for his activity must always be
like himself, holy, just and good. Is it
the principle of his activity This
cannot be, for all the activity of God is
under the direction of pure goodness.
Whatever God does, he is moved to do
by his goodness. Love is the principle
of all divine activity. God cannot do
what his love does not move him to do,
for if he did, he would act contrary to
his own nature, for "God is love" All
this will doubtless be admitted. What
more than the form of his activity then
can and does God change? 1t is not
its nature, nor its principle, what then
| is it :?
We are told that it is his feeling. A
change of feeling, as we'll as of form of
activity is possible to God. That is God
acts with different feelings sometimes
from what he does at others. When
he Furnishes his children, he feels diff
ferertly towarsasbhem from what he
does when he forgives them. But how
differently? Is he angry with them
MOI Does he hate them No! What
then is his feeling? Why, he is indig-
nant and righteously angry" But what
is this ? Is it a feeling that takes the
place of love Is it a feeling that for
the time being destroys the love of God
for his children ? BY no means. 1t is
only a mild kind of disapprobatiOn
which really springs, we suppose, from
the love Goo AS for his children. The
father that loves his child is displeased
with his disobedience, not so much be-
cause it injuries him, as because it in
! jures the child. So we are to suppose
that because God loves his children, he
is displeased when they sin against
him. Hence when they repent and
turn from their sin, he is pleased, and
therefore, so much change of feeling is
possible to God.
Allowing this to be true, the first
thing that strikes us is that this is a
very small change. 1t is only little
emotional perturbation; only a surface
wave of feeling. 1t is nothing morally
bad or radically disturbing. 1t neither
changes the principle nor the nature Of
the divine activity. God acts toward
us, in accordance with the pure princi-
pie of love, just as he would, if he had
none of those feelings that we call dis
pleasure. Really then this old fiction
| is pretty nearly true. We come very
near stating the whole truth when we
said "All the change possible to God
is in the form of his activity" All
the change possible to God, beyond
this, according to DR.. Sweetser, is
purely emotional, and does not in any
way affect his character, activity or
government.
But are we sure that these emotional
changes belong to God r? Are we sure
that these feelings of pleasure and dis
pleasure are experienced by the Divine
mind ? Are we sure that there is any
feeling in God that corresponds to anger
in man 1t is admitted that Divine
wrath is not like human wrath. There
it nothing vindictive in it. 1t is none
of that feeling that would return evil
for evil. 1t is a kind of wrath that is
brimfull of goodness. Do we know of
any such wrath among men ? Precious
little suspect. Human wrath that is
full of goodness is small quantity in
our world. The average man knows
nothing of it. Why then apply this
term to feeling in God, that is so un-
like wrath in man, that we can have
little or no apprehension of it? Is it
not calculated to mislead ? But it is
urged that there is an indignation in
man that is righteous. Moral philos-
ophers hold that as between man and
man anger in the sense of indignation
may justly arise when there is ''sufii-
cient cause I" But what can be sufli-
cient cause for this feeling in God ? Is
it sin? But did not God know that